Here we go again with yet another papal controversy over remarks made by Pope Francis to a group of young people in Singapore concerning religious pluralism. My friend Christopher Altieri makes a good case here at CWR why this kerfuffle is essentially a big nothing burger. And though I agree with his main point that there is too much hyperventilation going on over the remarks, I do think there are some troubling aspects of the pope’s comments that need addressing.
Before I proceed, however, a couple of caveats are in order. First, these remarks by the pope are clearly not in any way definitive teachings of the papal magisterium. Even if we judge them as imprudent and ambiguous, there is no need to throw accusations of formal heresy around. Let’s not invent crises where none exist. The remarks are problematical, but can also be dismissed as the mere incautious musings of a pope speaking off the cuff.
Second, the pope was not engaging in a sophisticated discourse, attempting in a few remarks to resolve a thorny theological topic. He was speaking to a group of children who were from a variety of religious backgrounds. And as a pastor, he was trying to communicate to them why the path of rancor and division is not a healthy one, and that it is of the very essence of “religion” to seek God first which should, by all accounts, put us on the path to dialogue rather than confrontation.
Therefore, when the pope says “All religions are paths to God” I think we need to cut him some slack since in context what he was alluding to were the major “higher” religions of the world, most of which he goes on to specifically name (“Some Sikh, some Muslim, some Hindu, some Christian.”) So no, I do not think the pope would view Baal worship, Moloch worship, and modern Satanism as paths to God. The word “all” in this context is one of those ambiguities we often see when this pope speaks extemporaneously. And I think that it needs to be interpreted charitably in its context.
Nevertheless, in making these points, Pope Francis chose an unfortunate analogy to describe the nature of religion. He compared the various religions to the different languages of the world and said that religions are just different languages for approaching God. But this simply will not do. Altieri says that the analogy with languages “limps”. Well, with all due respect to my good friend and his excellent article, I think it does far more than limp.
All languages are forms of communication. But it would be wrong to say there is one language that does this best and in an absolute way, which cannot be surpassed by any other language. For example, nobody would say that English is the eschatological in-breaking of the very quintessence of communication in a manner that is constitutive of, and the very ground of possibility for, all other languages.
However, this is what Catholic doctrine says about God’s Revelation in Christ, which has been passed on in the Church and preserved: “Through all the words of Sacred Scripture, God speaks only one single Word, his one Utterance in whom he expresses himself completely” (CCC 102; see CCC 101-04) and “For the words of God, expressed in human language, have been made like human discourse, just as the word of the eternal Father, when He took to Himself the flesh of human weakness, was in every way made like men” (Dei Verbum, 13).
In other words, it is the Absolute nature of the Christian claim for Christ that is directly undermined by this comparison between all religions with language. Because it implies that Christ merely gives us one “grammar” among many other religious grammars, all of which, in their own idiosyncratic ways, are attempting to express the inexpressible, which is what we call “God”.
Thus, the use of the language analogy undercuts those who say that all the pope is referencing here is the teaching of the Church Fathers on the “spoils of Egypt” and the logoi spermatikoi, or the teachings of Lumen Gentium on the presence of truth in other religions (pars 15-17), or the ideas of C.S. Lewis and Tolkien on mythopoesis as expressive of what Lewis called the “good dreams” of the human religious imagination.
Yes, there is natural religion, and human reason can reach out to the divine in a lot of different ways. Yes, the Church has moved inexorably toward a far more expansive understanding of the movements of salvific grace outside of the visible Church. And if that is all the pope meant, I am on board that train.
But that is not what he said. Would that he had said all of that and had done so clearly and deftly with the alacrity of one at home in the thought world of the poetry of the Christian soul. Instead, he spoke in a manner that was evocative of a theological movement known as the “pluralism of religions” school of thought that has a pedigree in the Church that stretches back sixty years or more. In this school, Christ is merely one savior figure among many and in a kind of docetic move is but one avatar of a “divine christic principle” that has also instantiated itself elsewhere. There is one divine ice cream that comes in various christic flavors. There is one genus–“religious experience of God”–and “religions” are merely the various species within that genus.
Nor is this the first time that he has made such allusions, as we saw when he signed the Abu Dhabi declaration which pointedly affirmed that the “pluralism and the diversity of religions, colour, sex, race and language are willed by God in His wisdom…” The Vatican later tried to clean this up and there was some discussion that Pope Francis was merely affirming it is God’s “permissive will” for many religions to exist. But the damage was done and the whole affair was, in reality, just left hanging in mid-air without serious resolution. So there is reason to wonder if his recent remarks comparing religion with language are not a further indication of his leaning toward a pluralism of religions within which Christianity is merely one among many.
Furthermore, whether intended or not, the pope’s recent remarks, insofar as they speak in the language of this theology, contain more than a whiff of a certain kind of apophaticism so exaggerated that it calls into question the very concept of an absolute Divine Revelation as such from within history. Younger Catholics may be excused from seeing the full intellectual genealogy of this idea that religions are merely grammatical expressions of a more generic religious experience of God in natural reason. But those of us who have been around for a while have seen this rodeo before. And one can only assume, given this pope’s age, that he has, as well.
The metaphysical linchpin of this theology of religious pluralism was a deep rejection of the very concept of an Absolute eschatological in-breaking of God into history in a final and definitive expression of the Divine self. This is ruled out in principle, grounded in the Enlightenment’s rejection of the idea that the timeless truths of the Infinite God can be expressed definitively in the contingent truths of history. Thus, one of the more common analogies for the further invention of the Enlightenment–i.e. “religion”—were the differences among languages.
Thus, the religions of the world were treated with a condescending and dismissive “respect” as being all equally ambiguous and incomplete. Like blindfolded people at different ends of an elephant describing what they feel and mistakenly thinking that they have truly grasped the fullness of what an elephant is. In this view, only modern secularity fully grasps the essential unknowability of God. Therefore, this God of secular reason is a Deistic construction at best and at worst is simply an unknowable possibility that becomes increasingly socially irrelevant. All that remains for the Christian theologian who desires to play in that sandbox is to invent out of whole cloth a grotesquely unreal amalgam of “the religions” in some kind of theological Esperanto that, insofar as it seeks for a universal religion, still ironically resonates with the echo of the now vanquished Pantocrator.
One is tempted to say that we should not make too much of this language analogy since the pope was speaking off the cuff. But like so many other instances of these kinds of off-hand remarks by Pope Francis, there is rarely, if ever, any walk-back or clarification, and certainly never an apology from the pope. And so I think one is justified in wondering just how “shooting from the hip” these comments were. It is more likely these off-the-cuff comments are actually unguarded comments and, it seems, unfiltered comments. They are, in other words, what poker players call a “tell”.
There is yet another troubling aspect of the pope’s remarks. He speaks of “religions” precisely in an essentialized and reified manner as these easily identifiable “things” when they are not, as any true historian or sociologist of religion can tell you (and which is discussed by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger in Truth and Tolerance: Christian Belief and World Religions). The Enlightenment invented this notion of “religion” as any organized effort to institutionalize “the God question” but clearly had the Christian Church in view precisely in order to cordon it off as a discrete sociological reality in order to domesticate it and bring it under State control.
Aquinas defines “religio” as that natural virtue whereby the creature, in the run of justice, gives back to the Creator his due homage. This has always been the Catholic approach to the definition of religion and it has its roots in our Lord himself, who linked together the concepts of truth and worship (Jn. 4:24). There is an inherent connection between the Christian religion as the place where “true worship” happens. Grace builds on, and perfects, nature’s impulse to worship. And this is simply not the same as defining religion as a wholly discrete reality grounded in the asymptotic quest for the ineffable.
Finally, ignored by many commentators is an analysis of just what the pope means when he talks of “dialogue” among religions. Pope Francis seems reticent to invoke the name of Jesus in these kinds of interreligious venues and rarely does so. This raises the question of the theological foundations of dialogue in a Christian register. As Joseph Ratzinger makes clear in Dominus Iesus (2), the theological core of the necessity for dialogue (and it is a necessity) is that it is an essential accompaniment to the command to evangelize. There is therefore an ineradicable linkage between dialogue and faith in Christ, wherein the latter informs the former in profound ways.
That is not to say that genuinely Christian dialogue must proceed in a heavy-handed manner. Quite to the contrary, since the evangelizing task requires a listening posture that demands patience, empathy, and a true desire to shape the Christian evangel to the delicacy of the given situation.
Nevertheless, a true dialogue cannot move forward with the apparent presumption that the very mention of the name of Jesus is somehow an off-putting, offensive, and indelicate thing to do. The non-Christian interlocutor would certainly expect a pope to say something about what it is that Christ brings to the table of dialogue. Any dialogue partner who would be alienated by such an endeavor is not one who is seeking a genuine encounter in the first place.
What then explains the reluctance of Pope Francis to ground explicitly his message to the non-Christian in the love of Christ poured out for all? Why not say to the children of Singapore that the God of Jesus Christ is a God of love, who loves all of his children, and who therefore condemns religious violence and acrimony? That it is this God, in whose name the pope speaks, who commands respect for the inviolable dignity of all and thus rejects all haughty forms of religious triumphalism?
Is it perhaps because Pope Francis has a concept of dialogue that is less Christologically-centered and is instead grounded in a sociological and psychological understanding more in tune with the globalism of the modern world? This is a question that cannot be answered here and now, but it is a question that needs clarification if the pope wishes to avoid the criticism that he is hiding Christ under a bushel basket in order to be more in line with the religious egalitarianism of modernity.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
Pope Francis has a difficult time staying on track with Catholic teachings. Now he has weighed in on matters that are none of his business – the presidential election. If he keeps interfering in domestic politics, the Catholic Church’s tax-exempt status should be re-examined.
I say go ahead and take away tax exempt status, thus removing the duct tape over our mouths.
You state that we should cut him (the pope) some slack, but after over 11 years of cutting him slack, it does get tiresome.
We should cut him as much slack as he cuts for others, such as a certain Bishop in Tyler Texas.
James, continue to “wreak precision, make clarity.”
The excuse that Pope Francis was “only” speaking to children doesn’t pass muster.
Somewhere along the line, I’ve picked up the notion that “nothing but the very best is good enough for children”.
Children see right through any BS, if they have proper formation, that is…
Puzzlement is the word that describes my thoughts regarding Pope Francis.
The Pope does not engage in determining who is right or wrong or in distinguishing truth from error. He does not claim that all religions equally and sufficiently possess the same heritage or fullness of saving truths, nor that they are free from errors. He does not advocate a relativistic view of truth, where what seems true to each individual is valid, nor suggest that everyone is free to believe whatever they prefer without being bound by a universal and objective truth. Faith is not confused with subjective opinion, and there is no suggestion that there is a plurality of faiths akin to the plurality of opinions. The Pope reaffirms that truth and faith are one, with the Catholic faith being the singular truth, as taught by the Church. He upholds the responsibility to enlighten those unaware of religious truths, to reject falsehoods, and to correct those who err in matters of religion. Furthermore, he emphasizes the duty to guide others towards embracing the fullness of truth, found solely within the Catholic faith.
His message is a call for all religious groups and communities, regardless of their beliefs, to seek convergence toward God. This appeal is particularly directed at monotheistic religions, such as Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, but may also extend to Buddhists and Hindus. He calls for a united testimony against atheism, pantheism, agnosticism, polytheism, idolatry, warmongering, and persecution, in alignment with the Queen of Peace’s message, which has been guiding us for the past 43 years.
(The history of salvation is, in fact, a story that has a beginning and an end, unlike the secular or pagan one. The final part of the history of salvation, the end times, is a particularly troubled, apocalyptic phase—a vision that struggles to find its place in theology and, in general, in the Church.)
The Pope’s comparison of the diversity of religions to the variety of languages does not endorse indifferentism or relativism. Nor does he deny, as unthinkable, the necessity of following Christ for salvation. He is not suggesting that Christ is merely one path to God among many, where individuals could choose freely with certainty of salvation. Instead, the Pope, as the Vicar of Christ, affirms that Christ is not one of many ways but “the” Way. Other paths, while human in nature, participate imperfectly in the singular divine path that is Christ. Those who, in good faith, follow their religion without knowing Christ may still be saved through Christ, even if unknowingly.
Nevertheless, what an individual does for salvation—whether Christian or follower of another religion—can hold similar value, as all humans are fallible and limited. It is possible that a Christian may lack grace, while an honest, good-faith non-Christian may possess it without knowing. However, this comparison pertains to individuals, not religions themselves. A Christian is not synonymous with Christianity, just as a Buddhist is not Buddhism, and a Muslim is not Islam.
Peter Kreeft beautifully said that a religious believer who knows the true and the good in his head but who doesn’t love it in his heart and his life—he won’t submit to it, he wants to make it relative to his desires, relative to what his heart really loves and wants and seeks—he’ll lose even the truth and goodness he already has by making it relative to himself, his heart, his will, his desires, his demands. He won’t submit his heart to truth. That’s the essence of all true religion: submission of the heart to truth, to God, to what God is: truth and moral goodness.
If I believe that a religion were objectively false, not objectively true, but I embrace it anyway, because I felt like it, I’d be refusing to submit to truth. Or if I didn’t care whether it was true or false, but I embraced it anyway, for some other reason—any other reason besides truth—I’d be refusing to submit to truth.
Obvioulsly, the Pope does not deny the primacy of truth, of Christianity—such a notion would be heretical for a Pope. He firmly upholds the uniqueness and universality of Christ’s mediation as the Savior of humanity. All who are saved, whether they know it or not, are saved through the merits of Christ, regardless of their religious affiliation.
The Pope refers to the fact that Christ’s perfect and unparalleled mediation, as taught by the Second Vatican Council, “does not exclude but evokes varied cooperation in creatures,” which includes participation by other religions in the one divine source. It would be absurd to think that the actions of Buddha, Muhammad, or the Hindu Vedas—merely human works—could be placed on the same level as the divine work of Christ or valued equally, or that they somehow complete Christ’s work.
The Council of Florence in 1442 declared that “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those who exist outside the Church cannot participate in eternal life” (Denz. 1351). However, the novelty introduced by the Council lies in the distinction between partial membership, applicable to non-Catholic Christians, and full membership, held by Catholics. Salvation remains possible for non-Catholics who, in good faith, are unaware that salvation comes through the Catholic Church.
This long, convoluted, but typical defense of Francis is typical for you but still inappropriate. The pope had no business making the statement that he made, and people correctly argue that it is not consistent with Catholic teaching. There comes a time when your responsibility is to call a spade a spade rather than defending the indefensible. The repeated but ineffective excuses made for Francis in your posts are getting old.
It’s unfortunate to have to acknowledge this, but it’s true: accusing implicitly the Pope of heresy results in the accuser himself becoming a heretic. Certainly, it must be recognized that the Pope’s words, at first glance, may seem disconcerting, but a good Catholic, who knows that a Pope cannot be heretical, prudently considers these words. By exercising good will and placing them in the context of the Pope’s other statements, one realizes that they can be interpreted in a way that is fully compatible with the truth of faith, according to which Christ is the sole Savior of the world
Sorry, but calling out Francis when he speaks falsehoods is not heresy, it is a moral and spiritual responsibility. Francis is human and sinful, which means he can soeak erroneously or falsely. His pontificate bears out this fact. Your excuses constitute grave sin and self-deception.
free will affects him as well
Paolo – a devout Catholic can take the statement and situate it within Church teaching. The problem is that secular news media publicize the remark and the plain meaning of the Pope’s statement would lead many to assume religious indifferentism.
Paolo: “Salvation remains possible for non-Catholics who, in good faith, are unaware that salvation comes through the Catholic Church.”
Meiron: Is salvation possible for the Catholic Vicar of Christ, who, in good or bad faith, teaches (off his cassock cuff) that salvation comes through the Catholic Church while leading many catholics and non-Catholics alike to meander and follow to the end the path of any other religion but Catholicism and the cross of Jesus Christ?
Dear Meiron, when Pope Francis, in his usual preaching, insists that Christ is the Savior of the world and that we are obliged to proclaim Christ to the whole world, what else does he mean if not that Catholicism has primacy over all other religions? And what does he imply if not that there are errors in other religions that only the Catholic Church can correct?
The fact that the Pope did not mention these things in his speech to the youth does not mean he denies them, but rather that in that particular circumstance, he chose not to speak about them in order to highlight the beauty of interreligious dialogue, which is taking place in Singapore. He wanted to present this experience as an example for those faithful who, in different religions, cultivate aggressive and factional attitudes.
When he spoke about presenting one’s own religion as superior to others, if you noticed, he did not refer to the religion itself or to objective truth, but to ‘my religion,’ to the individual’s conscience and their attitude toward objective religion. It was almost as if he wanted to point out the risk of presumption and arrogance—risks that are not merely hypothetical but very real—when it comes to what he calls proselytism, a misguided way of spreading the Gospel. The temptation is to confuse the superiority of Catholicism with our own personal superiority as Catholics, which is not guaranteed at all, because we too are sinners and morally we could even be worse than followers of other religions.
Moreover, when the Pope spoke about the risk of quarreling, he was referring to this form of proselytism. But it is clear that this in no way excludes our readiness to face opposition, even to the point of martyrdom, with God’s help. And we know how often the Pope reminds us of those brothers who are martyred because of their faith.
I repeat, in summary, the Pope’s speech is not clear, but it is still a speech by the Pope, and it should be considered with respect. It’s not forbidden to have reservations—I have them too—but I believe it’s better to support him. We must make the effort, as brothers in Christ, to offer a charitable interpretation, which, contrary to what some accuse me of, is not grasping at straws, but genuine charity and collaboration with the Vicar of Christ.
“…a speech by the Pope,…should be considered with respect.”
Yes, we respectfully listened to or read what the pope said. Then we disagreed. We are under no obligation whatsoever to disown the sensus fidelium of the one true holy apostolic Catholic faith (according to the perennial Magisterium, the Words of Our Lord in Scripture, the words of his first apostles, disciples, and Doctors of Tradition). We are not to accept false teachings or beliefs.
Further, intellect and conscience are gifts and powers of each and every individual person. The Baptized Christian Catholic in the state of grace has the promise of the Spirit’s illumination–we may have gifts of Wisdom, Counsel, Knowledge, Understanding, etc. The state of grace opens the intellect to illumination. Faith and grace and love work wonders, and some are given particular charisms to test, to discern, and to recognize false teachings. Some may even be able to particularly and sensibly smell cowardly or equivocal speech.
The faithful’s illuminated mind and heart understand God’s reason and how He speaks to conscience. We know that a well-formed and grace conscience is to be rightly honored. It is our duty to share our charism. We know when we hear nonsense, no matter its origin or another person’s ‘authoritative’ station. We know when a power with moral authority downgrades, subverts, warps and thwarts God’s power under cover of false humility and fake charity. When we are certain of God’s knowledge and when we communicate our faith and belief, we do God’s work.
So you’ve completely ignored what he’s said for 11 years.
So you’ve completely ignored what he’s said for 11 years. Not only does he deny immutable truth, he denies it is sourced in God and insists God is also unsure about truth and in the process of learning about truth that is constantly changing throughout history.
Obedience is the word that describes my thoughts regarding Pope Francis. He repeatedly commands us to “wreak havoc, make a mess.” And yet the authors at CWR brazenly bring precision and clarity to the consistent chaos of this pontificate. Not me.
Well done. I echo the same in my comment below, if it’s posted. We owe this pope the minimum respect of taking his oft-repeated formulas seriously. I wish more had started doing it years ago.
“Yes, Holy Father, you are making a mess. Yes, Holy Father, you, occupying the See of Rome, today and last month spoke a thing which does not accord with clear Church teaching. Here is what you said. … Is that what you said? … We thought so. You are indeed MAKING A MESS! Bravo! Very impressive! Now we are going to begin to discuss what it means that you keep repeating these things. Please excuse us.”
Talk about a word salad! Dr.Chapp you’ve even outweirded the eponymous kalama herself! your essay is a collection of pretentious religious claptrap I’ve seldom encountered before. Such high-falutin’ gobbledygook; What exactly ARE you trying to convey? you don’t much LIKE Bergoglio? Just try to be clear whatever it is. Don’t beat around the bush, my man! In any case, just don’t be so coy because in many Catholic quarters Jorje is a flatout HERETIC! He’s been called out by Fr. jesusMary E. at least a couple of times now in this regard. But all in all, I’ve NEVER seen the likes of your post. Gorgeous in all of its saladic wordiness. Just saying.May the Lord Jesus bless all. RTR
“your essay is a collection of pretentious religious claptrap I’ve seldom encountered before.”
You should get out more. Read Scripture. Theology. It’ll do you good.
I had no trouble understanding Dr. Chapp. It was long, but hardly Kamala-esque.
The Joe Biden of Popes.
The Synodaling of this pontificate is a hermeneutic of discontinuity. It is as if we are being prepared for a third covenant. Pope Francis teaches like none of his predecessors.
“It is as if we are being prepared for a third covenant.”
“As if” is not needed here. It is exactly what is happening. I understood some time ago that it will be clown-like, dispersed, not as scary as in the Apocalypse. It will be “as if” to make it easier to accept. Those who reject rink not being killed but being mocked.
Hence, you are right with your “as if”. It is indeed: “Here (something slightly off, “an oddity” as I call it) is what you should accept.” – “You say it is wrong?” – “But he did not mean that, he meant this.” (see Paolo’s messages for a perfect illustration of popsplaining = multiplication of the pieces in a collage).
It is as if Peter, after Our Lord proclaimed “whoever does not eat My Flesh and drink My Food will not have eternal life” begins preaching to the scandalized Jews “He did not mean it literally, He did not really say it, you did not understand” while, worst of all, “Christ” was approving his actions.
Chaap (whom I otherwise think is not only learned but has his feet firmly planted on the ground) states: “And as a pastor, he was trying to communicate to them (children) why the path of rancor and division is not a healthy one.”
I consider someone who holds the title “pastor” also has the interpersonal insights and demeanor of a “father.” A father who wanted to communicate a message about rancor and division to his children doesn’t launch into a discussion about religions and diverse paths to God. Rather, in language that children can understand, he simply explains why harmony and unity are more desirable than rancor and division. The problem for Francis is he falls very short on how to be a father. He is stiff, punishing, arbitrary and authoritarian. If we want an example of a pontiff who was fatherly, meek and humble of heart, all we have to do is look at Pope St. John Paul II. But that’s Church history B.F.E. (Before the Francis Era).
I think people aren’t “confused” by the Pontiff Francis.
It’s clear that he isn’t into the “Jesus as Incarnate Son of the Living God” thing.
He is in communion with the mind of McCarrick, and the heart of Rupnik.
To understand PF one might resort to the book by Wolfgang Smith (RIP) “Theistic Evolution”. There you will discover in plain and unambiguous language the hermeneutic of Jesuit heresy since Teilhard de Chardin was resurrected by our string of Modernist Popes since JXXIII. Smith was a professor of Math at MIT and a devout Catholic. I thank William Briggs for his post mortem essay in tribute to this good man. The book is not so long and is written in plain language without verbal fancy or intellectual pretense so he rest of us may enjoy its fruits.
Francis chided the priests in Singapore that they should not “proselytize” non-believers or Muslims. So, the new evangelization is over on the synodal age?
Sorry, but this pope has used up far more slack than any Catholic paying attention can cut for him. Would that we stopped paying attention!
I think Larry is precisely right as to why the language metaphor is disaastrous, but I think he is wrong to underline the degree to which these are “off the cuff” remarks. Because this pope always wears the same cuffs. And wearing them proudly, even stubbornly.
If the language metaphor is bad and wrong, another tell in the remarks was the pope’s claim that all religions are “a path to arrive at God.” Right there in *arrive* is the problem. If he had said all religions are “a path toward God,” he would still be speaking with the Church. He used *arrive* because he is not speaking, or thinking, with the Church.
He is the pope, and we owe him at least the reverence of respecting his words. He says what he means.
And so the proper title for any truly serious article on this event would be: “The Pope in Singapore: Material or Formal Heretic?”
Enough with kerfuffles. This man is not kerfuffling.
We can with conditional legitimacy say that all religions are different languages for approaching God. That is, within the condition of what God means and what is being sought for worship. As such, does the chosen approach legitimize what is perceived?
Quetzalcoatl, among several gods, was the Aztec god of creation of the universe and mankind, and author of knowledge. There is a degree of legitimacy, certainly the need to dismiss other Aztec gods of death and so forth. Buddhism, the religion created by Siddhartha Gautama [the Buddha] has a putative higher degree of legitimacy. Gautama sought a median between extreme asceticism and sensuality in freedom from ignorance, lust, and suffering, instead focusing on ethical training in kindness toward others. Clearly there is an admirable degree of good in this approach. We find in these two examples a conceptualized idea of worship, the Aztec a singular God of creation, and the Buddhist reverence of attributes of the good.
Insofar as languages of approaching God, we cannot confirm that these paths lead to the one true God. They stop dead in their quest with beliefs that actually prohibit arrival at knowledge of God. That is why these two among the others require conversion. The Apostle in Romans 1 argued the Romans turned to sexual depravity as a consequence, viewed as a punishment because of their unwillingness to accept the findings of reason evident in the natural world that there is a God, not gods. Islam is antithetical to Christ and the true God revealed through him. Judaism rejects their Messiah.
From an existential perspective at this time in Man’s history in light of the revelation of the true God, now 2024 years since his incarnation and the beginning of revelation the religions that Pope Francis named as different languages for approaching God can no longer claim any legitimacy.
Insofar as Chapp’s linguistic analysis of the issue I believe his endnotes confirm that the Word speaks for himself.
Chapp is of that generation of Catholics who just can’t bring itself to acknowledge the obvious: Pope Francis is a heretic, whether “formal” or “material” or whatever. He loses credibility by doing the supposed “right thing” in bending over backward to defend Francis as not heretical before proceeding to critique him in a way that logically ends up with the very proposition he disclaims at the start. But he just can’t bring himself to write the actual words. He could at least admit that Francis’ statements are heretical on their face even if he won’t accuse Francis of formal or material heresy. But he won’t even do that. He should take a cue from his good friend Gaven Ahenden, who recently released a video on this topic that tells it like it is.
Re Deacon Peitler above (4:34 a.m.) – Precisely. Someone who presumes to teach children needs to be more, not less, clear.
Christ has always been the center of Pope Francis’ life and writing. Furthermore, Christ is everything that the religions of the world are searching for. As G. Studdert Kennedy points out, the Messianic passion is not limited to the Jews; we find it in all the great religions of the world. Having said that, let’s not forget that the Pope is a guest in someone else’s home. They invited him there, they received him with great joy and great love. Now, if Francis believes what St. Paul wrote in his letter to the Galatians, namely that “It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me”, then in receiving Pope Francis into their home with great joy and love, they received Christ with joy and love, whether they knew that explicitly or not. When you are a guest in another’s home, you do not say things like “Our religion is better than yours”, or “You have only a sliver of the Eiffel Tower, whereas we have the whole Tower”, etc. That’s just bad manners. Evangelization is not the same as apologetics. A pope is not a traveling academic, but a father, and his life is less about abstract theological problems than it is about relationships. As Christ said: “Whoever receives you receives me, and whoever receives me receives the one who sent me.”
Here’s something that Studdert Kennedy wrote in 1920, 40 years before Vatican II will begin to move in this direction:
“I do not think there is any doubt that we have grossly underrated the moral and spiritual worth of other religions, and have allowed prejudice to blind our eyes to their beauty, and to the foreshadowing of Christ which they contain. It is a tragedy that we should have allowed a spirit of almost savage exclusiveness to have blotted out for us the revelation of God contained in earth’s million myths and legends, so that Christians have regarded them almost as though they were the inventions of the evil one. It is a disaster that we should have lumped all other faiths together and called them “pagan”—dismissing them as worthless. It is disastrous because it has distorted our missionary methods and delayed the development of the world religion. It has made us seek to convert the East not merely to Christ, but to our peculiarly Western Christ, and to force upon other peoples not merely our experience of Him, but our ways of expressing the experience. It is disastrous, too, because it has bred in us the spirit of intolerance and contempt for others which is one of the chieftest obstacles to the union of the world”.
You channel the center of the pope’s life and writing, while the entire discussion here proves you err in that conclusion. Francis fails to unequivocally cause the orthodox Catholic flock to believe that he holds Christ in any measure above ground.
Then you ask us to assume that Francis believes St. Paul in Galatians: “It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me.” Well, what the heck! We cannot assume this at ALL! If Francis himself believed it, he would talk Christ whether convenient or not, at good times, in good places or not, as Christ, The King of All Nations, has commanded of His disciples at Mark 15:15 and elsewhere and everywhere in his earthly sojourn of life.
Christ DIED for Francis! Many another martyr DIED for the words of Christ. Francis at least should speak clearly and not equivocally. If non-believers have received him into their country or their homes, Francis should have the mental equanimity to speak about that for which he stands.
Francis’ words have simply (as they have repeatedly in the past) proven that for which he stands: He stands to equivocate the Word of Christ. Does Francis give one WHIT of evidence that he knows or cares what Christ commands his followers to do? Many of us with ears to hear do prudently believe Francis inept, inane, or worse, as he has shown himself to be. Revelation provides powerful testimony to truth.
He was wrong with this comment about “all” religions offering a path to God.. and you are wrong to use a very long piece here to try and justify it.. as a former Southern Baptist convert to Catholic Church.. perhaps I should just return there as most of my family and friends remain in the Southern Baptist church.. since all denominations are a path to God. However he “meant” it.. I heard “all”.
“and you are wrong to use a very long piece here to try and justify it…”
Did you actually read the essay? Serious question.
I did. And I am mystified in trying to understand how Francis’ religion, which he seems to think of as Catholicism, is a path to God rather than a path away from God given his history of unambiguous emphatic condemnations of the necessity of repentance for sins and his demands that we “walk with” and “accompany” human vanity and those who give an appearance of being on a path of self-deification.
In one of his early World Youth Day events, he did lecture the young to listen to atheists because there is so much to learn from atheists, and he wasn’t referring to learning about fallacies of logic. He was praising them. Francis gives the appearance of a neophilliac who will say anything to enhance his sense of trying to prove he is more open to “new thoughts” that no one else dared to propose before no matter how silly or what the dammaging repercussions. And this is not a small matter for our primary obligations to God. And not a small matter for articulate Catholic commentators finding ways to downplay the madness.
After reading Mr. Altieri and Mr. Chapp’s defense of our blind Pope’s disregarding Jesus as the only way to our Heavenly Father, I would suggest that both men reread the lives of the martyred saints, beginning with the Apostles and St. Paul. From there I strongly suggest that they then read of the early martyrs fed to the lions, tigers and bears in the roman coliseums. After that, they should read of the such martyred souls as St. Lucy, St. Lawrence, St. Joan of Arc, St. Isaac Jogues and the North American Martyrs, St. Maximillian Kobe, St. Theresa Benedicto, just to name a few, who embraced unimaginable physical pain and spiritual trials, ALL because they believed to their last dying breath, that Jesus Christ is the ONLY Way, Truth and the Life to our Heavenly Father. Not only would I suggest this to Christopher and Larry, who appear to be misguided, but first, I would tell this to the face of the Pope himself.
Also, instead of their feeble albeit sincere attempts to defend the indefensible, better that both catholic essayist ponder the words of our Lord Jesus to his apostles when he said, “Suffer not the little children to come unto me.” Why? Because our blind Pope had the golden opportunity to tell these little Asian children about Jesus, the ONLY humble Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world! This very moment the begs the question: Why wouldn’t the Pope want to share with little children the GREAT love that Jesus, the word of God made flesh for the life of the world, has for each of them. It confounds me that the Pope would be content to let these children walk in darkness and not be invited into the Light of Jesus Christ as the only Savior of mankind.
My blessed brothers in Jesus on forum, we are very much smack dab in the middle of the end times road! And even Cardinal Burke himself pondered recently whether we are now in the midsts of the “end times” and prayed that Our Lord Jesus would bring Divine intervention to the chaos and evil at work in His Church on earth. Mr. Alteri and Mr. Chapp seem to be clueless as to the dark cloud of evil that now overshadows Holy Mother Church here on earth. If their spiritual eyes are unable to see the oppressive smoke of satan that has entered the sanctuary of the Bride of Christ here on earth, then it’s now wonder that they see this moment as simply an episode where we should “cut him some slack.” What a very shallow explanation. Rather, it would be better that we offer prayers for our blind Pope, prayers to the Holy Spirit for enlightenment and conversion for Pope Francis to now speak with power just as St. Peter and the Apostles did to the 3000 new converts to Jesus Christ in Jerusalem.
COME LORD JESUS!
I expect better from Larry Chapp than this nonsense. Francis indulging his hobby of blatant Catholic disparagement is not yet another “nothing burger.” There is no moral reason too “cut slack” to anyone insulting Catholicism. Chapp ignores how heavy handed Francis is in his description of the alleged heavy handedness of Catholic apologists.
There are enough simplistic anti-Catholics sitting on bar stools throughout the world repeating snotty strawman characterizations of Catholic missionaries as always and everywhere having been motivated by venomous hate and nothing else, while Francis has also continuously demonstrated, for 11 years, his naked contempt towards the most humble and pious remnant of practicing Catholics with vitriolic insults.
Amen.
The children should all be seeking to convert to pre-conciliar Catholicism after meeting a valid suprême pontiff… instead of which they are reaffirmed in their post-conciliar error.
I’m outta slack!
This about “dialogue” from Marello Pera, philosopher and former politician:
“I am urging people to realize that a war has indeed been declared on the West. I am not pushing for a rejection of dialogue, which we need more than ever with those Islamic countries that wish to live in peaceful coexistence with the West, to our mutual benefit. I am asking for something more fundamental: I am asking for people to realize that dialogue will be a waste of time if one of the two partners to the dialogue states beforehand that one idea is as good as the other” (Ratzinger/Benedict and Pera, “Without Roots: The West, Relativism, Christianity, Islam,” Basic Books, 2006).
“Does Pope Francis have a concept of dialogue that is less Christologically-centered and is instead grounded in a sociological and psychological understanding more in tune with the globalism of the modern world?”
Definitely, “If there is a union of a private nature, there is neither a third party, nor is society affected.” -Jorge Bergoglio, dismissing the fact that sin done in private is sin, even if it is consensual, I suppose because he believes it is a private matter that does not include a third party (for example, The Holy Ghost), and according to Jorge Bergoglio, does not affect society, including those persons engaging in sin, because there are no witnesses (For Example, God).
See CCC Magisterial Teaching On Sin. We can know through both Faith and reason that the private magisterium created by Jorge Bergoglio, most definitely differs in essence from every previous Magisterium and The Deposit Of Faith.
Wow to us!
The modern world claims that private morality and public morality can serve in opposition to one another, and are not complementary, for the modern world believes we are free to do anything in private as long as we consent to sin.
It’s hard not to laugh at Chapp for asking us to cut PF some slack now that he has doubled down on his heretical comments with his statement of Tue 9/17. It’s almost as if he were speaking directly to Chapp, saying “No, I really meant it and I know that no one can stop me now, so I will rub your face in it.” It’s frustrating that Chapp’s writing is so good but that he always stops short of the ultimate, unavoidable and logical conclusion concerning PF.
Wow. Some people on here have serious reading comprehension issues. Those who accuse me of whitewashing the Pope’s comments obviously missed the entire point of the entire last 1500 words of the article wherein I take the pope to task for comparing religions to languages and for his shallow concept of what “religion” is and what “dialogue” is. And my comment about cutting the Pope some slack is being taken out of context. It was in reference to one single issue. The pope says “all” religions lead to God. I think he really meant “most”. I do not think the Pope, problematic as he is, believes Satanism leads people to God. And that is all I meant about the cut him some slack line. On just this one small point. But as the rest of my article makes clear I do not cut him slack on most of what he said.
Some people really need to learn how to read.
Ok, Chapp, we’ll cut you some slack! Do keep up the good work. We really enjoy your writing and insights even if you can’t / won’t go as far as we seem is warranted.
Would anyone care to venture a guess whether Francis, given his remarks about all religions being a path to God, would be willing to die as a martyr for his faith? I for one wonder about that.
I am not engaging in hyperbole when I say that Pope Francis’ ambiguous theological comments, if written on an essay paper, would have merited him an “F” in my junior high school religion class.
There is nothing puzzling about Pope Francis. He is a modernist, whose entire understanding of Catholicism begins and ends with Vatican II. Once you accept this, then nothing he says will surprise you.
Yes, the previously infallible office of the now suddenly fallible Pope (Matt. 16:17–19; John 21:15–17) certainly deserves an “F” for imagining that a religion that has been around for only about 2000 years – about half as old as other world religions that encompass a great deal of the world’s population – has exclusive rights to the only path to God, and that “demands patience, empathy, and a true desire to shape the Christian evangel.” If one wishes to have such a static and unquestioning belief system, along with scripture that is interpreted by only the select few with a direct channel to god that the current fallible Pope seems to be lacking, then that’s their prerogative. IT doesn’t mean, however, that all other approaches are without value and that their followers or believers have to be force-fed thAT same static and unquestioned belief system. No doubt the Taliban, Isis, and the Ayatollah have the same idea about their brand of God and brand of Islam – there’s only way to to do it; otherwise, you’rE at risk of being torured, executed, or perhaps being damned to hell for eternity in the name of that same all-loving god. This is perhaps the same kind of thinking that enabled the Crusades under Pope Urban !!, the Inquisition under Pope Gregory IX, and years of clergy sexual abuse in this country and others under a number of Popes.
Whatever the Pope says in other contexts, he is always blunt, direct and brutally clear in his intentions to crush the old rite of Mass.